log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Psionics in Tasha

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
My system isn't just moving around spells and calli Ng it something different because the different use cases are combinations of existing spells, class powers, race powers, item powers, and anything else appropriate that fits the POWER theme. It also includes some amount of new or modified existing content , just not 100% new or modified.

So if nothing else I've shown there COULD be a distinct feeling psionics system that isn't any more difficult mechanically than spellcasting and ki power use. You can argue about why that is all you like, but it's not like it would have been hard to come up with something more distinct than another sorcerer and some new spells.
No one's saying there couldn't be, but there currently isn't, and not for lack of trying.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Samloyal23

Adventurer
So much to unpack. Okay, if they make psionics into magic and use spells, I am just going to do a homebrew of my own or find a good third party set of rules. Part of the point of having psionics is to have a set of supernatural powers that has a different feel to it than magic and that means its own mechanics. I think just not wanting to learn a new set of mechanics is just lazy, put some effort into your game and be adventurous. Read the novel "Master of the Five Magics" by Lyndon Hardy. He has five classes of spellcasters, each class has a completely different set of magical laws and mechanics. There is no reason we cannot do the same thing in D&D. Throw in True Name magic, Pact magic, and Shadow magic from the "Tome of Magic", just update the mechanics. The 2E rules were amazing for the time. A skill and feat based psionics system with tangents and psionic harbingers an constructs could be done in 5E with the benefit of the updated skills rules and saving throws. Take a look at the Force rules from the d20 Star Wars game. Add telepathic combat and you have a psionics system.

Another thing I have not seen anyone discuss is the idea of psionics and magic accomplishing the same feat in different ways. Take Invisibility. There are lots of ways to make something invisible. You can transmute it so it is transparent all the way through. You can bend light around it with telekinesis. You can connect it to another plane like Shadow or the Fairy Other World so its substance is hidden. You can cloud minds with telepathy so that the object is edited out of a single target's perception. Deciding magic and psionics use different methods means they will have divergent mechanics and feel like they have their own niche.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Another thing I have not seen anyone discuss is the idea of psionics and magic accomplishing the same feat in different ways. Take Invisibility. There are lots of ways to make something invisible. You can transmute it so it is transparent all the way through. You can bend light around it with telekinesis. You can connect it to another plane like Shadow or the Fairy Other World so its substance is hidden. You can cloud minds with telepathy so that the object is edited out of a single target's perception. Deciding magic and psionics use different methods means they will have divergent mechanics and feel like they have their own niche.

Not necessarily. Right now, invisibility (2nd level spell) can be cast via arcane magic (wizard bard, sorcerer), divine magic (twilight cleric), primal magic (grassland druid), artifice (artificer) invocation (warlock's shroud of shadow), and yes, even psionics (duergar dwarf) all using the same mechanics.
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
So much to unpack. Okay, if they make psionics into magic and use spells, I am just going to do a homebrew of my own or find a good third party set of rules. Part of the point of having psionics is to have a set of supernatural powers that has a different feel to it than magic and that means its own mechanics. I think just not wanting to learn a new set of mechanics is just lazy, put some effort into your game and be adventurous. Read the novel "Master of the Five Magics" by Lyndon Hardy. He has five classes of spellcasters, each class has a completely different set of magical laws and mechanics. There is no reason we cannot do the same thing in D&D. Throw in True Name magic, Pact magic, and Shadow magic from the "Tome of Magic", just update the mechanics. The 2E rules were amazing for the time. A skill and feat based psionics system with tangents and psionic harbingers an constructs could be done in 5E with the benefit of the updated skills rules and saving throws. Take a look at the Force rules from the d20 Star Wars game. Add telepathic combat and you have a psionics system.
You do know that the 2e rules are considered by many to be a hot mess, right?

Another thing I have not seen anyone discuss is the idea of psionics and magic accomplishing the same feat in different ways. Take Invisibility. There are lots of ways to make something invisible. You can transmute it so it is transparent all the way through. You can bend light around it with telekinesis. You can connect it to another plane like Shadow or the Fairy Other World so its substance is hidden. You can cloud minds with telepathy so that the object is edited out of a single target's perception. Deciding magic and psionics use different methods means they will have divergent mechanics and feel like they have their own niche.
That's because, for me, this isn't something I consider. I can have every single one of your explanations occur within the same system of magic. What you're describing is a difference in flavor text, not in operation, so from a game rule perspective the different flavors don't require different mechanics -- they can all be represented by the same mechanic with a different description. The need for separate mechanics isn't to enable different descriptions.

There's nothing wrong, inherently, with different mechanics. For me, though, it brings up the specter of 2e psionics, which were, as I say above, a hot mess. There were easily abusable and in some places broken. Separate mechanics for what is largely the same thing results in larger chances at unbalanced or abuseable systems. Honestly, I think that this is part of the attraction for some, that brokenness. If it's a flavor thing, though, it can be easily accomplished within the same system with minor tweaks. I'd rather psionics not just be another caster class -- they need something unique. But, I don't say that because I think psionics needs a specific thing, but because we don't really need another caster class that doesn't have something to add to the game.
 


Samloyal23

Adventurer
Not necessarily. Right now, invisibility (2nd level spell) can be cast via arcane magic (wizard bard, sorcerer), divine magic (twilight cleric), primal magic (grassland druid), artifice (artificer) invocation (warlock's shroud of shadow), and yes, even psionics (duergar dwarf) all using the same mechanics.

But would it not be more interesting if they did operate differently from each other, so they had their own means of being foiled and manipulated? Do you not find all of that sameness redundant and uninteresting?
 

glass

(he, him)
A lot of people didn't like it. I think a lot of people thought it would go away too quickly, but the math didn't really support their fears.
I suspect a lot of people responded negatively to all the psionics polls on general principle, regardless of the merits of the actual system being polled.

You misunderstood my point. Make your homebrew version. It will be great. But, that route is a route that was already rejected.
We know it has been rejected, that is what we are complaining about!

More generally, since there are a lot of posts in this thread doing the same thing, pointing out the rules say that psionics is X will never be a rebuttal of people complaining about psionics being X. Pretty much be definition.
_
glass.
 

Remathilis

Legend
But would it not be more interesting if they did operate differently from each other, so they had their own means of being foiled and manipulated? Do you not find all of that sameness redundant and uninteresting?
I find its not six different mechanical systems to learn, understand the interaction between, and hope are balanced against each other, all to achieve the effect of an automatic stealth check success.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Not necessarily. Right now, invisibility (2nd level spell) can be cast via arcane magic (wizard bard, sorcerer), divine magic (twilight cleric), primal magic (grassland druid), artifice (artificer) invocation (warlock's shroud of shadow), and yes, even psionics (duergar dwarf) all using the same mechanics.
Actually, there are three ways only. Arcane(wizard, bard, sorcerer, warlock and artificer), Divine(cleric, druid and paladin), and Psionic(called "Duergar Magic") which does not use components.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Actually, there are three ways only. Arcane(wizard, bard, sorcerer, warlock and artificer), Divine(cleric, druid and paladin), and Psionic(called "Duergar Magic") which does not use components.
I'll give you druids as divine, but artificers magic (which requires a tool to use and the effect to take a physical interactive form to use) are as distinct as psionics. (In fact, they're the inverse; artificers require materials and tool components to work, psionics is without components. It's about as distinct as psionics are using 5e's rules.

Edit: then again, if you want to go by spellcaster focus:

Arcane focus: wizard sorcerer and warlock
Divine focus: cleric, paladin, ranger
Druidic focus: druid
Musical instruments: bard
Artisan tools: artificer
None: psionics
 

Vael

Hero
Is anyone following the Spheres of Power 5e Kickstarter? I missed out, and am not pre-ordering, but from what little I know of the system, it might be a way to implement Psionics.
 

EscherEnigma

Explorer
Someone should have let the writer know he was making an error.
Here's his Twitter, go tell him yourself: https://twitter.com/chrisperkinsdnd

I'll wait. (no I won't)

That said, the point --which you entirely ignored-- is that your baggage on what "psionics" means is both (A) not universal, and (B) not RAW or RAI in D&D 5e. D&D has room for way more weirdness then you can imagine, apparently.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
You misunderstood my point.

Make your homebrew version. It will be great.

But, that route is a route that was already rejected. Maybe it means that the version WoTC is going to release is a soulless empty shell that no one will like, but you can't expect them to go back and make something that they were told not enough people wanted.

To torture your metaphor, this is like calling up your Local Pop Radio Station and telling them that they should play Frank Zappa's music, even though they tried it in a test audience and were told that not enough people wanted that to take up that air time. It doesn't mean Zappa's music is bad, or that you shouldn't make your own play list, but it seems kind of bizzarre to say that the Radio Station is somehow wrong and should go against their own data.

Well then the station should shut up about Zappa or Psionics.

It's not our fault WOTC wants to do something niche and turn it pop then getting backlash.
 

My system isn't just moving around spells and calli Ng it something different because the different use cases are combinations of existing spells, class powers, race powers, item powers, and anything else appropriate that fits the POWER theme. It also includes some amount of new or modified existing content , just not 100% new or modified.

So if nothing else I've shown there COULD be a distinct feeling psionics system that isn't any more difficult mechanically than spellcasting and ki power use. You can argue about why that is all you like, but it's not like it would have been hard to come up with something more distinct than another sorcerer and some new spells.


Of course you could, they did.

And it got rejected by the majority of surveyed players.

So they tried again.

And it got rejected by the majority of surveyed players.

And then they tried a third time

And it got rejected by the majority of surveyed players.

And they tried one last time

And it got rejected by the majority of surveyed players.



So, at this point, they are doing spells and subclasses. It is the only thing that wasn't rejected. My point is simply that since we are at this stage, we might as well acknowledge that the spell system can represent psionics, and has been representing psionics, and considering the challenges involved and the amount of rejected material, this was the best way forward.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


So much to unpack. Okay, if they make psionics into magic and use spells, I am just going to do a homebrew of my own or find a good third party set of rules. Part of the point of having psionics is to have a set of supernatural powers that has a different feel to it than magic and that means its own mechanics. I think just not wanting to learn a new set of mechanics is just lazy, put some effort into your game and be adventurous. Read the novel "Master of the Five Magics" by Lyndon Hardy. He has five classes of spellcasters, each class has a completely different set of magical laws and mechanics. There is no reason we cannot do the same thing in D&D. Throw in True Name magic, Pact magic, and Shadow magic from the "Tome of Magic", just update the mechanics. The 2E rules were amazing for the time. A skill and feat based psionics system with tangents and psionic harbingers an constructs could be done in 5E with the benefit of the updated skills rules and saving throws. Take a look at the Force rules from the d20 Star Wars game. Add telepathic combat and you have a psionics system.

We are constantly saying that WoTC should listen to the fans, that they should give the fans what they want. Well, the fans don't want a new system.

You can call it lazy if you want, you can give "but it would be so easy to do X" all you want, but at the end of the day, the fans spoke, and they indicated no.

At least for Psionics, it appears like they are done trying to make a new system. And after years of trying, I don't blame them.

Another thing I have not seen anyone discuss is the idea of psionics and magic accomplishing the same feat in different ways. Take Invisibility. There are lots of ways to make something invisible. You can transmute it so it is transparent all the way through. You can bend light around it with telekinesis. You can connect it to another plane like Shadow or the Fairy Other World so its substance is hidden. You can cloud minds with telepathy so that the object is edited out of a single target's perception. Deciding magic and psionics use different methods means they will have divergent mechanics and feel like they have their own niche.

Sure, but none of that is defined by the spell, correct?

So, it would still be the same spell, with the same rules, even if you flavored the process differently.


---------------------------------------------------------------------


You don't really read the posts you respond to, do you?

For a man who demands respect from others, you sure like making personal attacks don't you?

@EscherEnigma posted the rules for Innate Spellcasting (Psionic), the highlighted the section that stated "This tag carries no special rules of its own" which is meant by the author to indicate that the tag "Psionic" as a tag has no special rules. It is just spellcasting.

The author actually does, if you read the unbolded part, say as well "A monster that has this tag typically doesn't require any components to cast its spells." But that is not a special rule. That does not carry any mechanics that are unique to "Psionic" as I have shown quite a handful of magical abilities that have no components. Remember the Succubus Charm? The one that was so explicitly magical it was like cows having four legs? No components. Vampire Charm? Same thing. Nightmare's Etheral Stride, Cloakers Phantasms, the list is huge.

So, your claim that the writer made a mistake is wrong. I assumed that was because you thought you were reading the Innate Spellcasting rules, no the Psionic specific ones. But, since you decided to attack me for that assumption, I must assume you knew and just were ignorant of the massive list of magical monster abilities that require no components.

"Psionic" as a tag carries no special and unique rules. Including the lack of components. Plenty of explicitly magical and arcane abilities lack components in monsters. And, as WoTC releases psionic spells, the tag will still have no special rules attached to it. It will be a label for flavor, and nothing else.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We know it has been rejected, that is what we are complaining about!

More generally, since there are a lot of posts in this thread doing the same thing, pointing out the rules say that psionics is X will never be a rebuttal of people complaining about psionics being X. Pretty much be definition.
_
glass.


I guess I can be sympathetic, but at the same time, eventually complaining about it just being in denial. It is what it is.

If you want to claim they should have done X, when X was tried and rejected, fine. Make your own version. But don't expect the company to listen to you, when they tried the exact thing you are trying and were told to stop and do something simpler.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well then the station should shut up about Zappa or Psionics.

It's not our fault WOTC wants to do something niche and turn it pop then getting backlash.

Maybe they should have. But people still keep yelling for it, so they kept trying.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Maybe they should have. But people still keep yelling for it, so they kept trying

They didn't have to do it. But they bowed to pressure without having the internal drive for the individual element.

The two things that fueled 5es success are also the things holding it back: the need to appeal to a broad base and the need to make the system feel nostalgic

These allowed the community to kill new ideas and the designers to weakly commit to and fight for concepts and aspects they personally didn't care about

are constantly saying that WoTC should listen to the fans, that they should give the fans what they want. Well, the fans don't want a new system.

WOTC should listen to the fans, not the fans and the haters and the indifferent.
 

SkidAce

Hero
Supporter
Had an idea, not going to work any harder on the concept...BOOM here it is straight.

Psionics is like the wizard schools i.e. disciplines can make learning powers/spells within their category easier or take less time, but built on a sorcerer chassis with spell points and no components (maybe a focus cost equivalent for expensive ones).

/waves
 

cbwjm

Hero
Had an idea, not going to work any harder on the concept...BOOM here it is straight.

Psionics is like the wizard schools i.e. disciplines can make learning powers/spells within their category easier or take less time, but built on a sorcerer chassis with spell points and no components (maybe a focus cost equivalent for expensive ones).

/waves
Make it so that sorcery (psi?) points spent on their discipline are reduced by 1 point to a minimum of 1. Lets them push their chosen discipline a bit harder than others.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
@EscherEnigma posted the rules for Innate Spellcasting (Psionic), the highlighted the section that stated "This tag carries no special rules of its own" which is meant by the author to indicate that the tag "Psionic" as a tag has no special rules. It is just spellcasting.

And as I showed, that section is wrong. Psionic innate spellcasting requires no components. All other innate spellcasting requires components. Clearly the psionic tag has special rules.

Remember the Succubus Charm?

You mean the one that isn't innate spellcasting so doesn't apply? Yep.

So, your claim that the writer made a mistake is wrong. I assumed that was because you thought you were reading the Innate Spellcasting rules, no the Psionic specific ones.

My claim was correct. You just insist on repeating a False Equivalence that you should really just drop.
 

And as I showed, that section is wrong. Psionic innate spellcasting requires no components. All other innate spellcasting requires components. Clearly the psionic tag has special rules.

You mean the one that isn't innate spellcasting so doesn't apply? Yep.

My claim was correct. You just insist on repeating a False Equivalence that you should really just drop.


I'm done trying to explain this to you.

I have shown time and time again, magical effects, that are not spells, and do not require components that you say are not psionic. Yet you want to insist that somehow Psionic is special, because it has the rule of not being spells and not requiring components. To the point that you are calling the author who wrote the RAW rules wrong.

Live in your own world with your own version of reality. I can't force you to accept anything else.
 


Presents for Goblins

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top